Clone out ?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

bajadreamer

bajadreamer

Well-known member
Member's gallery
Question is: would you attempt to clone out some of the OOF background to the right of the bird's head? This was shot of a Steller's Jay was taken in RAW. converted in DXO Pure Raw, background selectively darkened in PS. I considered cloning out some of the OOF wood behind the bird, but found that if I did that, I almost needed to clone it all out. My skills are not good enough to make a partial clone look real. Let me know what you think and if you think it would improve the shot to clone some (all) of it out, how would you do it? Feel free to try your hand.
Steller's-Jay-Sunrise-Highway-pr-ps-flat.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
I would. You could try the patch tool in Photoshop in content aware mode, or content aware fill. Another possibility would be the blur tool to blur the background.
 
Member's gallery
If that is what you want to do, using PS CC, I would simply make a large selection of the background on the right side of the image, paste into a new layer, flip it horizontally, move/size as necessary, and mask it over the OOF wood on the left of the image.
 
Member's gallery
Thank you for the quick replies. I took the image and applied content aware fill after selecting the area to be removed. Then used the clone stamp to tidy up the edges and applied a mask to the entire image and used a black brush to tidy up the edges of the lower log and bird. Finally I applied a Gaussian Blur to the BG. Improved the image, but do you think there is too much "cookie cutter" quality to it? If so, any thoughts on repairing that?
Steller's-Jay-Sunrise-Highway-1.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Nice job! For this composition, I'd prefer a 4x3 ratio, which would reduce the dominance of the background. But that is simply personal preference.
 
Member's gallery
I'd be OK with the original or your edits. Nature is messy and wildlife doesn't always pose for us in the perfect places. If you're looking to show a photo that describes where this bird lives, how it survives and the nature of its surroundings then stay with the first unedited one. It really gives a sense of place for this beautiful bird. If you're going after the portrait look, then absolutely your edits are the way to go. Just a matter of what you are going for and what you like the best. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter what we like, it is what you like.

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
I'd be OK with the original or your edits. Nature is messy and wildlife doesn't always pose for us in the perfect places. If you're looking to show a photo that describes where this bird lives, how it survives and the nature of its surroundings then stay with the first unedited one. It really gives a sense of place for this beautiful bird. If you're going after the portrait look, then absolutely your edits are the way to go. Just a matter of what you are going for and what you like the best. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter what we like, it is what you like.

Jeff
Click to expand...
So right you are. Compromise between trying to make the subject (bird) draw the viewers attention and also trying to give some idea of what I saw at the time I took the image. I also agree-it is me that has to be happy with the shot (and maybe my wife too). If I want to make the bird peppermint striped, that is OK. However, it is also useful for me to get other thoughts about an image. The proverbial "second opinion". Thank you for looking and commenting.
 
Member's gallery
bajadreamer said:
So right you are. Compromise between trying to make the subject (bird) draw the viewers attention and also trying to give some idea of what I saw at the time I took the image. I also agree-it is me that has to be happy with the shot (and maybe my wife too). If I want to make the bird peppermint striped, that is OK. However, it is also useful for me to get other thoughts about an image. The proverbial "second opinion". Thank you for looking and commenting.
Click to expand...
you're welcome. Hope my comments helped and didn't add confusion. Hey, I also know all about the wife being happy. My wife is also a nature photographer.
 
Member's gallery
I love the shot and your work on the background with the following qualifier. I see the bird first, but find my eye quickly drawn to the brighter spot on the right side background. Maybe if that part was toned down a bit, my eye would stay longer on the bird before moving through the rest of the shot. Just one opinion.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
JAS said:
I love the shot and your work on the background with the following qualifier. I see the bird first, but find my eye quickly drawn to the brighter spot on the right side background. Maybe if that part was toned down a bit, my eye would stay longer on the bird before moving through the rest of the shot. Just one opinion.
Click to expand...
Oh this is a constant headache for me in this shooting location. Much of the wood around this water (a cattle trough) is dead and without bark. Hence, it is shiny and white. I have already brushed in a curves layer on the entire log. Do you have any suggestions? When I try to reduce the brightness much I just get a "muddy" look.
 
Member's gallery
I am really commenting on the background rather than the log. I would use a brush or gradient to darken the background just a bit. I agree that too Mny. Adjustments can defeat what you are trying to do.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks everyone for their thoughts. While the processing of my images is primarily for my taste and preferences, it is helpful for me to get other's opinions. Sometimes, maybe I just get lazy, I do not see the obvious. It is only after it has been pointed out to me that it becomes clear. Anyway, here is the "final" product (or at least final until I change it again). Some of the changes do not show up well on the website, but I have balanced some of the dead leaves in the BG from the R to the L.
Steller's-Jay-Sunrise-Highway-3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Nice final product. I sometimes hesitate to offer my opinion because it is your photo and should look how you want it to look. I find that, sometimes, what I want to do does not match how others look at the photos and that disconnect happens. I know what I want and see it, but not always in a way that others will see what I want. I may then make two versions - one for me and one to share. In the end what matters is how you see and like what you have done. This is a well captured and processed image. I hope you like it too.
 
Member's gallery
As has been said above, it's what you (or the clients) like that counts on such decisions. But you asked :) so, I prefer the first shot; frames the subject very well and provides a nice diagonal balance (upper left and lower right).
 
Member's gallery
I think you've done a good job on your "removal" edit, but like Steven, I prefer the first shot with the background - all I would be tempted to do is burn it down slightly so that it's not as commanding.
 
Member's gallery
KirstyM said:
I think you've done a good job on your "removal" edit, but like Steven, I prefer the first shot with the background - all I would be tempted to do is burn it down slightly so that it's not as commanding.
Click to expand...
Good point, Kirsty. re the need for a bit of a burn; and if there then on the foreground log, as well. Oh and, 'Baja", I did fail initially to say, the shot of the subject bird itself is really, really nice!
 
Member's gallery
KirstyM said:
I think you've done a good job on your "removal" edit, but like Steven, I prefer the first shot with the background - all I would be tempted to do is burn it down slightly so that it's not as commanding.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your thoughts and for looking. I have saved flat TIFFs of both versions. I sometimes find that in a month or so, I will go back and look at an image and decide that I want a different look that I did at the time of initial processing.
 
Member's gallery
ssheipel said:
Good point, Kirsty. re the need for a bit of a burn; and if there then on the foreground log, as well. Oh and, 'Baja", I did fail initially to say, the shot of the subject bird itself is really, really nice!
Click to expand...
Thank you. As I stated to Kirsty, I have saved both copies as it is common for me to look at an image as it comes up on my screen saver at home and decide I want a different look than I did when I first processed the shot.
 
bajadreamer said:
Thank you for your thoughts and for looking. I have saved flat TIFFs of both versions. I sometimes find that in a month or so, I will go back and look at an image and decide that I want a different look that I did at the time of initial processing.
Click to expand...

We all do it our own way, so its all good, but overall I think the best bet is to save one layered tiff as the master rather than multiple flattened versions. That way working nondestructively one can return to change any one aspect of an edit including the crop without discarding the rest of the effort. File/export as is a fast way to get jpegs if needed.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
We all do it our own way, so its all good, but overall I think the best bet is to save one layered tiff as the master rather than multiple flattened versions. That way working nondestructively one can return to change any one aspect of an edit including the crop without discarding the rest of the effort. File/export as is a fast way to get jpegs if needed.
Click to expand...
Actually, I do save the layered TIFF + flat TIFFs. Some time in the past I goofed during an export to JPEG procedure and eliminated my layered TIFF, so now I save both a flat and layered TIFF. If I do export to JPEG for whatever purpose, I always work on the flat TIFF. Just me, but I try to make my workflow idiot-proof. There are times when I need all the help I can get.
 
bajadreamer said:
Actually, I do save the layered TIFF + flat TIFFs. Some time in the past I goofed during an export to JPEG procedure and eliminated my layered TIFF, so now I save both a flat and layered TIFF. If I do export to JPEG for whatever purpose, I always work on the flat TIFF. Just me, but I try to make my workflow idiot-proof. There are times when I need all the help I can get.
Click to expand...

That is wise, since there is a slight danger of accidentally writing the flattened tiff with the same file name over the layered one. I perhaps take a slight risk since I have to either remember 'don't save' after doing anything that needed temporary flattening or use save as or more usually save a copy. Export as is safe since it is a different file type. Good video below explains the differences.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top